You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hopefully not.
Will anyone be held to account?
Unlikely I would have thought, both the current government and the opposition are reluctant that British soldiers guilty of crimes in foreign countries, against foreigners, should be pursued:
Keir Starmer has sacked a Labour MP for voting against the government's plans to exempt UK troops from prosecution for war crimes and torture.
Well I hope the general who withheld info from the RMP is.
Why hopefully not @supperram ? Would love to know your rationale.
The Labour Party transformed that bill so that it does not have those effects…
…they got a better result, using the means they have while the Conservatives have a majority. Using parliament to prevent dangerous law making, rather than just signalling they are against a bill that would pass without their involvement if they did. The bill is still a big step in the wrong direction… not least for people working with and for the military… but it could have been even worse if pushed through without amendments, which an easier to understand vote against would have enabled.
@superram why not?
If those allegations are true, then the troops involved were breaking not only the rules of engagement, but also the law of armed conflict, effectively carrying out murder and covering it up with dropped weapons. They will have known this before they went into theatre; it was taught a lot in OPTAG and on arrival in theatre.
Yes, it was war. Yes, war is dirty, but when rules are in place to limit collateral death to combatants only, those rules are there to be followed. No weapon? Not a combatant, not shooting, even if they _were_ shooting at you and had dropped their AK and run away. The rules are there exactly to stop people being killed out of hand. If you disobey them, that is an offence.
It also undermines the “we are morally better than the enemy that uses IEDs” defence that all those that fought in the war _tried_ to follow. When that happens, you and your entire culture are dragged down to the level of the people you are fighting. Our troops _must_ be better than the enemy, otherwise, what are we?
I think it is likely to be too late to gather evidence and I am not sure the Taliban would, or could, provide security to the people that would likely go there to find it. I also think that the SAS are just about untouchable, especially with a conservative government. The MoD would not want a more detailed investigation either, it may shine an uncomfortable light onto the role of senior officers in their command chain.
Special services are always the hardest area to hold to account… but they absolutely should be. This isn’t even deniable operations. If no one is held to account over these claims, god knows what else can occur with immunity.
I've heard claims of the same things about US and Australian SF as well. It's hardly a massive surprise if I'm honest.
Special services are always the hardest area to hold to account… but they absolutely should be. This isn’t even deniable operations. If no one is held to account over these claims, god knows what else can occur with immunity.
I'm inclined to agree with this, although we don't know the full circumstances and facts from the reports.
If true, these are war crimes and people shod be held to account. But war can't really be judged the same way as "normal" violent crime, and special ops are definitely a grey area.
As nickc says;
That Australian sas libel trial is quite an interesting story (obviously less entertaining if you were murdered by them).
But war can’t really be judged the same way as “normal” violent crime, and special ops are definitely a grey area.
I think executing unarmed civilians can.
Like a lot of spooky stuff it’s grey because they make it grey - marking your own homework is great for that.
But war can’t really be judged the same way as “normal” violent crime, and special ops are definitely a grey area.
I'm not sure I agree TBH. If you accept that they're are rules to war (If nothing else than to persuade each side to treat captured soldiers with compassion and respect) then this sort of behaviour makes it possible, indeed more likely, that if non-SF soldiers are captured, they will be killed or tortured. Plus this sort of behaviour if unpunished, reinforces the idea that it's Ok for us to perpetuate war-crimes.
Awaits Tory leader candidates to denounce lefty journalissts besmirching good names of our Armed Forces
All of it seems very dodgy
I expect lots of money to be spent on a sham investigation, before everyone is let off.
I’ve been following the Australian defamation case. I saw the ex soldier at the centre of it speak at a business breakfast. He was telling this very polished Boys Own story of how he won his VC, “neutralising” enemies, etc. Total narcissist, but in a way that seemed to appeal to a mainly male engineer audience.
I've read a bit about this sort of thing, there's a not very pleasant video of Australian SF solders shooting unarmed Afghans on YT.
I'm not surprised really, but I question the morality of it all. Like so many others I read all that Bravo Two Zero type stuff years ago and it's all very exciting and that, mix that in with a bit of Hollywood and all the pro-military propaganda we've enjoyed since 9/11 and we reached the point where Forces Personnel, and Special Forces types are held on quite a pedestal, but the SF ones are stone cold killers, psychopaths with a purpose. They will kill Men, Women, Children, Cats and Dogs without pause if they can/need to. They were ordered to ‘kill or capture’ people based on very flimsy intelligence and it seems it’s possible a few of them decided to just kill anyone who was in the house they were sent to.
I havent been in the SAS so probably not best placed to answer from behind my keyboard.
However from watching TV they are trained to kill to a level not normally done in the armed forces, they do covert ops which probably are not legal, but are sanctioned by the government.
Train people to be the best killing machines in the world will create a little bit of liability, but I also respect their judgement in the heat of the battlefield, and I bet they just dont go around shooting random folk, and probably have some inkling that someone is a nice chap or not.
You cannot have it all ways.
If we ever get to the point where we start locking up soldiers that we put in to those kind of positions then I reckon we are putting our own future security at risk.
I'm more inclined to think its a failure of leadership rather than blame the individuals who are likely to be under all kinds of stress that we probably can't imagine.
I read all that Bravo Two Zero type stuff years ago and it’s all very exciting and that
I remember reading it at the time it came out and being genuinely confused about all the ****-ups. They were supposed to be this elite highly trained group of soldiers and literally everything they did either fell to bits in front of their eyes, or failed because they weren't prepared well enough, or some other cock up (including, but not limited to, bickering with each other like a bunch of fisher-wives). Even basic stuff like "What frequencies shall we use to communicate?" was wrong. They were discovered by a boy herding goats etc etc.
Total farce from start to finish.
But then that's largely what our armed forces seem to specialise in, finding themselves up to their necks in cock-ups entirely their own making and somehow painting it as both simultaneously the thing they planned all along, and incredible story of bravely to overcome it and get away.
I’m more inclined to think its a failure of leadership rather than blame the individuals
Nope, every soldier knows where the line is. Especially the sorts of senior ranked soldiers that the special forces draw their troops from. It is also a failure of leadership, but that shouldn't be an excuse that the individuals should rely on.
No plan survives first contact with the enemy.
Train people to be the best killing machines in the world will create a little bit of liability, but I also respect their judgement in the heat of the battlefield,
These alleged victims were unarmed prisoners. It’s not really a battlefield situation where a quick decision may be needed.
and I bet they just dont go around shooting random folk
have a read of the Australian SF ops report and investigation up the page. That's pretty much an accurate description of exactly what they were doing.
I struggle with this situation but...
ultimately professional soldiers, highly trained and intelligent, are murdering unarmed people.
That cannot be allowed to go uninvestigated and unpunished (maybe).
I am also very sympathetic to the fact that we trained the 'ultimate soldier' and then expect him to behave in a manner we (nice people who don't want to get our hands covered in blood) consider appropriate while performing his 'ultimate soldier' duties.
We've put him in a very tough position and then scrutinised his every action while doing the job we trained him for. It's a toughy but he's a professional and should be up to the job!
These alleged victims were unarmed prisoners. It’s not really a battlefield situation where a quick decision may be needed.
Agreed - but if they know this person as raped 20 women and cut the heads off 30 kids, and will try and kill them given the opportunity, or probably get released due to the lack of collaborated evidence, that is a very difficult situation to cope and deal with, especially when you have been trained to kill threats. They are trained to be aggressive and to kill.
Bosnia sounded absolutely horrific. I am not condoning their actions, but dont train people like that, and put them in a situation like that and expect everything to be done 100% by the rule book.
Seems like we hold trained dogs to higher standards than trained soldiers.
Yes some blame lies with the leadership and the people who decide we need special forces going around killing people, but it doesn't absolve the soldiers who absolutely knew what they were doing and probably signed up to do it.
I’ve never been a soldier in a war, where if I am captured I’m probably going to be beheaded - so difficult to comment on.
However seeing Russia’s bombardment of civilians - it does raise the question if any rules of war are adhered to?
I remember reading it at the time it came out and being genuinely confused about all the ****-ups.
Much the same as the Falklands then, and makes you wonder if their lower profile activities are conducted any better.
Abuse of non-combatants and prisoners is a result of a poisonous culture and a failure of leadership in condoning it, tacitly or explicitly. Somewhat undermines our moral authority when it comes to criticising the conduct of the Russian military in Ukraine, doesn't it?
Agreed – but if they know this person as raped 20 women and cut the heads off 30 kids, and will try and kill them given the opportunity, or probably get released due to the lack of collaborated evidence,
You can’t make stuff up to suit the narrative.
Ack it's alright lads, they're our animals...
but it doesn’t absolve the soldiers who absolutely knew what they were doing and probably signed up to do it.
Is that a fact or something you pulled out of your backside?
However seeing Russia’s bombardment of civilians – it does raise the question if any rules of war are adhered to?
Correct, personally I dont think they are.
We are subject to propaganda. Every one else does nasty things in war, but some how the British always play by the rules of war... which I find really absurd that you can have rules about what is considered lawful to kill someone.
Seeing and doing horrible stuff will screw with anyone's head, let alone someone who has already been trained to be an elite killer
Read the article
You can’t make stuff up to suit the narrative.
It is well documented.
But yes I was not there so I cant make direct links, just like those from their keyboards suggesting that the soldiers knew the rules and should have been squeaky clean.
I was watching a TV programme last night with a Bosnia alcoholic veteran on it. He said what he saw their screwed with his head, and has left his life ruined.
My wife is currently dealing with a patient who served there, and she has said the same, he is absolutely mentally scared from what he saw and did there.
which I find really absurd that you can have rules about what is considered lawful to kill someone.
A soldier's Guide to the Laws of Armed Conflict
It's in pretty straightforward language. There aren't many grey areas.
I remember reading it at the time it came out and being genuinely confused about all the ****-ups. They were supposed to be this elite highly trained group of soldiers and literally everything they did either fell to bits in front of their eyes, or failed because they weren’t prepared well enough, or some other cock up (including, but not limited to, bickering with each other like a bunch of fisher-wives). Even basic stuff like “What frequencies shall we use to communicate?” was wrong. They were discovered by a boy herding goats etc etc.
Total farce from start to finish.
But then that’s largely what our armed forces seem to specialise in, finding themselves up to their necks in cock-ups entirely their own making and somehow painting it as both simultaneously the thing they planned all along, and incredible story of bravely to overcome it and get away.
The worst part is that, all the cock ups were true, as was the conditions they faced in captivity, unfortunately all the heroic fighting stuff was made up. Even in that famous and heroic mission, they likely killed at least 1 unarmed civilian (claiming he was a uninformed solder) considered killing a shepard who ultimely tried to help them and stole a civilian taxi at gunpoint.
Is that a fact or something you pulled out of your backside?
The latter. All soldiers are heroes serving their country with courage and professionalism. If they shot some unarmed people I'm sure they had a good reason for it and weren't keeping score or anything so crass.
kelvin Full Member
The Labour Party transformed that bill so that it does not have those effects…
And yet the link which you yourself provided to justified that claim does not mention the Labour Party even once, let alone that it "transformed it". Did you read it?
What it does say is :
The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court indicated that were the law to pass, it would make the prosecution of British soldiers at the ICC more likely, given that the UK was unwilling to prosecute them.
And:
The proposals clearly violated international law, which requires that all states must prosecute such offences, no matter where they occur.
As a lawyer Keir Starmer should have known that and yet he whipped his MPs into abstaining from the vote and took disciplinary action against those that voted against it.
Your article further states:
In April, the House of Lords inflicted a defeat on the UK government, with peers expressing concern that the UK government’s initial proposal would have undermined the UK’s global leadership on human rights.
As a result, the government accepted amendments to exclude any international crimes from the scope of the Bill.
That is how you force a government to make amendments - by voting against a bill, not by abstaining, obviously.
I maintain my original comment - unlikely I would have thought, both the current government and the opposition are reluctant that British soldiers guilty of crimes in foreign countries, against foreigners, should be pursued.
The political will does not exist whether or not effective laws do.
In April, the House of Lords inflicted a defeat on the UK government
Lead by Labour peers, George Robertson amongst them. However like you, I can't see any govt of any stripe being forced into taking action against it's own forces. That's why the MOD's inspection and investigation found nothing in this case.
George Robertson amongst them
Boo! Hiss!!
Am I doing this right yet?
The bill could only be amended... it couldn't be stopped. Why? Because the Tories have a majority in the house of commons. The correct approach was to try and defeat the government on amendments, and improve the bill. Which worked. Still not a great bill... in fact it's still one that's mostly negative for everyone involved... but it doesn't give soldiers immunity from prosecution for acts carried out abroad (like those we're talking about here).
Here's your excited big bold quote...
Keir Starmer has sacked a Labour MP for voting against the government’s plans to exempt UK troops from prosecution for war crimes and torture.
In fact, what he did was not vote against the reading of the bill going ahead, and he wanted the shadow cabinet to act together on that. Instead the bill was amended at later stages to stop the government’s plans to exempt UK troops from prosecution for war crimes and torture. So the government was stopped from getting that put into law. The bill is passed, but the governments plans/intentions were in the main not realised as regards what we're talking about in this thread. Not an easy win for the opposition, but one that should be welcomed.
George Robertson amongst them.
I am sorry there appears to be some confusion here. I am acutely aware that some Labour politicians were strongly opposed to the bill, which is precisely why I provided a link detailing how Starmer had sacked a frontbencher for voting against the bill.
Starmer obviously couldn't sack the backbenchers who defied him by refusing to abstain and voting against the bill.
Kelvin claimed that, quote, "the Labour Party transformed that bill", this is clearly nonsense. You do not transform a bill by abstaining. Even Kelvin's link to back up this bizarre claim fails to mention anything at all about the Labour Party.
What "transformed" the bill was firstly the fact that it violated international law and therefore made prosecutions in the International Criminal Court more likely. And secondly massive opposition, not abstention, in the House of Lords.
I believe that there are somewhere approaching 800 members in the House of Lords of which about 170 or so are Labour.
A much more honest comment would be that the bill received significant amendments despite no effective opposition from the Labour Party. In fact the Labour Party leadership insisted that its MPs abstain from the whole issue.
Boo... Labour bad...!!!
Yvette Cooper made it clear at the time what her (and Labour's) concerns were with the bill, and the eventual changes to it reflected her concerns very closely. They managed to improve the bill to remove the mad idea of total protection for soldiers committing crimes abroad, while still seen to be backing people who have served their country. Not a bad result at all (unless anything Starmer can be connected to must be portrayed in the worst possible light, in any thread it can be, then, by all means, ignore the end result and wang on about whipping to abstain at first reading).
I think what makes tbis different is that the suggestion is not that these are soldiers on edge making errors of judgement in the heat of battle - this sounds far more sinister, like weapons were dropped in advance in order to incriminate the victims? You don't do that if you want to claim any kind of ethical high ground - otherwise we'd just be nuking from orbit.
Boo… Labour bad…!!!
You might have noticed Kelvin that I have weak party loyalty. My primary focus isn't on blind tribalism but on what I perceive to serve the best interests of ordinary working men and women.
Which is precisely why I am more than happy, as I did in my first post on this thread, to give credit where due to Labour politicians who make a stand for Labour's founding values and aims.
I will criticise all politicians, including those who purport to be Labour, if imo their actions are detrimental to the interests of ordinary people.
In contrast you appear to prefer a more simplistic attitude in which everything Tories ever do is bad and everything Labour ever does is good. Your simple criteria to decide whether something is good or bad is to establish who said it.
Which leads you to the "boo hiss he's a Tory" attitude as you celebrate Johnson's demise, with complete disregard to the possibility that his replacement might very likely be worse. Your basic tribalism helps you to override such concerns.
I’ve voted for three different parties over the years. I’m not tribal. There is a clear divide here between two parties that you are not acknowledging. This government tried to pass legislation that would (in they eyes of UK law) put UK soldiers beyond the reach of law when acting abroad. They were stopped. By Labour. That’s the facts. Not bad for a party in opposition against a party with a majority. I’m not blinkered, I can see faults in the teams leading all the parties right now. But this pretence that Labour and the Tories are the same on this important issue (and many others) should be called out.
I could have guessed before opening this thread that any alleged illegal activities the SAS did in 2011 was the fault of Keir Starmer 😂
This is in no way condoning the alleged actions, but its easy to sit here and take the moral high ground with hindsight when we weren't there so don't know the whole story.
The rigours of combat can be some of the most highly stressed situations a person can be subjected to which can have a serious debilating effect on judgement and ability to reason. Given that these guys operate at a continuous level of anxiety and stress no average Joe in the street would ever get to or experience its little wonder the media are having a field day!
Not to mention the monkeys licking their lips with excitement at the prospect of actually doing some work! Other than traffic duty in Tid or Catterick (about all they are good for!)
Tobias Ellwood should be the next PM!
I know people broken mentally and emotionally by their service, including family members. I still have no real idea about how hard their jobs were. None of us that haven’t “been there” can do. But the law protects them as as well as places expectations on them. You can be made to do anything if nothing is illegal.
They were stopped. By Labour. That’s the facts.
And yet the link which you yourself posted to make the alleged point makes no mention whatsoever of Labour. I can't imagine why.
Just reading up and watching it now. Some pretty damning evidence. Haven’t figured out their obsession with curtains
but its easy to sit here and take the moral high ground with hindsight….
Yep, that moral high ground being don’t execute unarmed civilians; not much intelligence opportunities from a dead bloke and I think the army has had experience before that killing civilians doesn’t de-escalate issues in the long run, quite the opposite.
…no mention whatsoever of Labour.
The vote on the crucial amendment raised by a Labour member…
Can we drop it now?
Can we drop it now?
There has never been any dispute that the House of Lords voted against the bill, you are now making stuff up. In fact that was precisely my point - they voted against it, they did not abstain. So thank you for making my point even clearer by posting a pretty graph.
In contrast Starmer whipped his MPs to abstain from the vote and specifically instructed them not to vote against it. He went as far as sacking a Labour frontbencher for voting against it.
So yet again I return to my point - the political will does not exist to pursue such cases. And by that I mean neither among Tory MPs nor the majority of Labour MPs.
The House of Lords won't be pursuing the matter and their amendments were obviously due to concerns with regards to complying with international law.
None of this has anything to do with blaming Starmer for alleged illegal activities by the SAS in 2011, as argee seems to bizarrely think.
The worst part is that, all the cock ups were true, as was the conditions they faced in captivity, unfortunately all the heroic fighting stuff was made up. Even in that famous and heroic mission, they likely killed at least 1 unarmed civilian (claiming he was a uninformed solder) considered killing a shepard who ultimely tried to help them and stole a civilian taxi at gunpoint.
Michael Asher (ex SAS) wrote a good book called the real Bravo Two Zero. He spent a long time in the desert in the area, meeting with many of the Arabs who were there (he has spent years and years as a desert explorer living with nomads in various parts of the world). It's some years since I read it, but as I recall he pulls McNab's story apart. Definitely worth a read if your interested in that sort of thing.
With regard to the topic of discussion. Quelle surprise. No question in my mind that things like this happened, and the story of covers up rings true.
Is it condonable? No. Understandable? Maybe, as mentioned above you're fighting an enemy who definitely don't play by the rules. When you've seen your mates blown up tortured, killed..
If it is true, it should be investigated and perpetrators should be prosecuted. Of course, as soon as you do that it may be very difficult to find people prepared to go into those situations in the future..
Kelvin and Ernie, Ernie and Kelvin( so there is no favouritism) why don’t you just meet somewhere private and have a square go? It will save the rest of us having to wade through your attempts to outdo each other on far too many threads.
Is it condonable? No. Understandable? Maybe, as mentioned above you’re fighting an enemy who definitely don’t play by the rules. When you’ve seen your mates blown up tortured, killed..
Bear in mind the unit the BBC investigated didn't suffer a single casualty.
Is it condonable? No. Understandable? Maybe, as mentioned above you’re fighting an enemy who definitely don’t play by the rules. When you’ve seen your mates blown up tortured, killed..
Is it understod ?, completely. But the problem is its not the people who they are going up against that are being killed, but everyday people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We have to prosecute, or every Ukrainian civilian what has met the same fate at the hands of the Russians we can say the same for. Those Russians have been in combat situations, and have seen their mates, killed, tortured etc, but the Russian troop then go on to shoot civilians who they find in the areas where their operations have taken place. Those are wrong, those are illegal, so as far as international law is concerned, the UK troops are equally guilty.
If we say our troops are exempt- for whatever reason you'd like to bring, then that is effectively the end of international law and rules of engagement because anything and everything is then justifiable.
Can those who are trying to justify the actions of the soldiers please read the ****ing article!
I'm a forces brat, I went to an MOD school, I lived and breathed that stuff and even I can see there is absolutely no morally correct way to justify the picture that has been painted.
For those that actually read books (Commando comics and Soldier of Fortune don't count) does this not sound like the exact same as what folk were doing in Vietnam? Pretty sure shooting folk and dropping guns was a common practice. Again, lack of scrutiny and poor leadership allowed these things to happen.
It will save the rest of us having to wade through your attempts to outdo each other on far too many threads.
A very fair point duckman. These days I mostly deal with it by generally not bothering to read Kelvin's comments, including ones directed at me. Whatever point I make it is pretty much garranteed that Kelvin will challenge it, as of course happened today.
My mistake for bothering to read what he wrote. Initially I ignored it but his editing drew me in. But yeah, I really shouldn't allow him to draw me into another pointless "debate". Comment noted.
Being a pad brat isn't quite the same! Unless you were forced to do bed blocks and show parades by your parents!
@superram was probably there…
I was. Not SF though. Unless you were there, seeing your friends killed and injured, then you’ll understand why I personally don’t want a witch hunt for those guys. Birds of a feather and all that………
@superram, so you, like me, went through OPTAG and got the LOAC briefings? You got the brief that, under the ROE of “courageous restraint”, no weapon meant that you could not shoot them, right?
This is not about a witch hunt, this is potentially about murder by rogue individuals and a lack of leadership to bring them to heel. If the people that were killed had weapons planted on them, then they were, at least to my interpretation of LOAC, murdered.
Must be very difficult to have respect for 'the rules' when your enemy doesn't. Its very easy for us sitting at home condemning people sent out to carry out confused objectives to sit in judgement.
Rules of war are a political smoke screen, in reality the moment you commit active troops atrocities will happen. At least ours aren't blatantly indiscriminate shelling of civilians as the Russians are doing. Mind you wasn't that ling ago we were quite happy to fire bomb whole cities and burn / suffocate whole civilian populations. We have moved on a bit.
Willard, UKSF operate routinely on completely different ROE often mission specific, OPTAG for them is run internally by the task force and again is focussed on their current tasking, not generic like the rest of us had to go through.
What they have allegedly done is a breach of LOAC, Geneva Conventions and defence captured personnel (CPERS) rules (they’re the consolidated points from LOAC, Gen Conv and NATO guidelines)
Waffling about ROE when you have no idea what they were operating under nor what their targeting parameters were is just a fap fest for the eternally unfulfilled.
It's amazing how quick some of you are to wave away war crimes.
Who? I haven’t. If they executed detained persons, combatants or not, they’ve committed a crime. The rules give specific protections to CPERS and civilians.
Doesn’t necessarily mean some get a brew & a hug, but they certainly don’t get shot.
Interesting thread.
redefined1cycle
Shafiq (the muslim – barbaric ain’t they!).
I might be misreading this, but... What?
Tough one this. Part of me is saying we need to have a full investigation and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice.
The other part of me is fully aware of what happens during operations. For those who have never served, whose life was never at risk, who have never seen what happens in battle, I can see why you would say immediately there is no grey area.
Here’s a story……
You’re patrolling in a small village, lots of non combatants, an IED goes off, 5 of your troop you are responsible for blown to bits and you’re injured, temporarily deaf and quite a bit of skin missing. The non combatants become a mix of combatants and non combatants and you and the remainder of the troop are now under heavy small arms fire.
While you can you then start collecting the body parts of your dead troop putting them in bags, friends you have known for years, bits you have trained since they were just out of school.
Do you call in an air strike on the village to allow you and your troop to be medivac’d? You know the air strike will kill a lot of non combatants, even children. Or do you allow yourself and your troop to be killed?
After the medivac, and you know who was responsible for your ambush and the death of your troop. The people you feel responsible for. But you know full well that the weapons will be long gone. Can you honestly say you would leave it be? You know who did it.
(The above is what happened to a very good friend of mine, a RM Sgt)
But I completely get there is a need to follow the rules. We can’t criticise Russia or other countries when we have in fact carried out similar. We can’t have soldiers being judge and juror. But equally, I get how this happens.
I get that that situation would be harrowing. But...That's not what's going on here. Here people are being arrested/kipdnapped? and then once under control (including plasti-cuffs) are then killed and (perhaps) spurious reasons given - "he reached behind a curtain (like a magician) and had a hand grenade", "he had a gun" Even the rest of military found the whole thing unbelievable. One email suggested that "It's so incredible - You couldn't MAKE IT UP"
nickc - how do you know the background to the raids? Do you think the soldiers just turned up at any house and killed random individuals?
I do love the 2nd hand dits going on in here. Nothing worse than a badly told 2nd hand dit, please just stop because it adds nothing to this conversation.
That doc was a pretty poor piece of work and imo not up to the usual standards I’d expect from Panorama.
Do you think the soldiers just turned up at any house and killed random individuals?
I don't know whether the men the SAS soldiers were alleged to have killed were "random" but that doesn't really matter. The point is that 54 men have been killed on raids and in a number of the reports very similar reasons were given as to why they were killed. One email by an officer reported on the "latest massacre". Another report questioned whether it was a deliberate policy as it was happening so frequently. One report alleged the victim had "brandished a hand grenade" his family have testified that when they buried him, they had to cut off the plasti-cuffs that had tied his hands together behind his back.
That doc was a pretty poor piece of work
They've been investigating for 4 years, and it's so bad that the MOD have asked for the evidence so that they can investigate themselves (again). I'm pretty certain the MOD will find no evidence this time around either, as no Govt will want to get into the situation of having to prosecute it's own soldiers.
The other part of me is fully aware of what happens during operations. For those who have never served, whose life was never at risk, who have never seen what happens in battle, I can see why you would say immediately there is no grey area.
Here’s a story……
You’re patrolling in a small village, lots of non combatants, an IED goes off, 5 of your troop you are responsible for blown to bits and you’re injured, temporarily deaf and quite a bit of skin missing. The non combatants become a mix of combatants and non combatants and you and the remainder of the troop are now under heavy small arms fire.
While you can you then start collecting the body parts of your dead troop putting them in bags, friends you have known for years, bits you have trained since they were just out of school.
Do you call in an air strike on the village to allow you and your troop to be medivac’d? You know the air strike will kill a lot of non combatants, even children. Or do you allow yourself and your troop to be killed?
After the medivac, and you know who was responsible for your ambush and the death of your troop. The people you feel responsible for. But you know full well that the weapons will be long gone. Can you honestly say you would leave it be? You know who did it.(The above is what happened to a very good friend of mine, a RM Sgt)
A reminder that the alledged atrocities in no way resemble the above - the squadron investigated suffered no injuries in their six month tour, the targetting was "pressured and rushed" (which is not the unit's fault), and they made multiple reports of detained personnel reaching for weapons (an action which no other unit reported).
These do not appear to be 'heat of the moment' bad decisions
The MOD statement prior to airing days very different. Like it or not, there’s no case to answer as far as they’re concerned.
Being a pad brat isn’t quite the same! Unless you were forced to do bed blocks and show parades by your parents!
Not my parent's, no, but we did parades, barracking beds, 10 minute reports and all that stuff for either ceremonial or disciplinary reasons. You learn drill rather fast (if you're smart) when you're 10 years old and being marched about by an RSM with obligatory pace stick.
A reminder that the alledged atrocities in no way resemble the above
As I said, I doubt most of those defending have actually read the article. If they had they wouldn't be coming out with the war fantasy nonsense.